"How do you define a writer? Describe yourself as a writer."
discussion one
When it comes to defining a writer, I personally perceive it as someone who habitually undergoes the process of transitioning their thoughts to relative physical form. By physical I do not necessarily mean that they are able to be touched or moved, but more so seen—you have made your thoughts visible to the human eye. An individual who goes through this process of self-expression for pleasure, regardless of whether their words are meant to be seen by solely their eyes or others’ as well, to me, is a writer. However, there is a misconception that, in order for someone to be considered to be a writer, they must be good. This, of course, brings to attention what precisely molds a good writer. Many attribute it to the quality of the words being used (i.e. “big” words) and punctuation, while others emphasize on the message and whether it has the ability to (positively) impact a mind. My views are like the latter. Good or falling short of that, a writer writes and enjoys to write. It is as simple as that. If someone does not believe they are good, it does not signify that they are not a writer—it merely opens the window for them to continue their journey as writers.
As someone who identifies as a writer, it is important for me to point out that I try to always write with my soul. I do not write with the question “What will people think of this?” lingering in the back of my head; I write what I feel, as I feel, without doubting myself. Essentially, I write passionately—regardless of whether I am writing an assignment for a class, a journal entry, or a poem. This passion often radiates in my writing. I must admit, however, that I do at times obsess over my grammar and punctuation. Even though I have complete awareness of the reality that mastering the mechanics of writing is not all that qualifies you as a good writer, I nevertheless find myself temporarily falling into that pit. When this happens, I remind myself that I write for myself; deciding if others should have the ability to see comes second (even if it is an assignment). Writing for me is freedom, and my goal as a writer is to have that sense of liberation present in my writing to the degree to which it can be felt.
discussion ten
A writer falls under Lloyd Bitzer’s definition of a rhetorical situation: “the context in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse” (Grant-Davie 265). In both instances, the writer and the speaker are rhetors. Therefore, a writer is a rhetor who creates a discourse, meaning “a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network’”(Gee 18). In that sense, a writer writes with purpose. I used to believe that a writer was merely anyone who physically wrote, but there is a deeper underlying meaning as to what molds a writer. A writer knows the following: (1) how to create an effective argument; (2) how to support their claims; (3) how to use persuasion; (4) how to paraphrase and summarize properly without falling into plagiarism; (5) but also understands that “all texts are interdependent,” and thus have a reliance among each other in order to reach effectivity and success; (6) and how they must be aware of potential presuppositions (non-explicit information) within their writing depending on the discourse community they are writing to (Porter 34).
When first considering myself as a writer, and describing it, I approached the rhetorical situation in a poetic matter. One thing that I did have right is that I write passionately, and it certainly showed. However, I used to solely rely on that; I would forget to establish credibility for myself or back up certain claims that I would make. Recently, I’ve been more attentive of how my words may be perceived by the audience that may come across my writing. I’ve also been more versatile in terms of how I present myself--meaning that, although I am a poet, sometimes I have to disassociate from that identity in order to reach optimum efficiency and success. While writing remains my primary source of freedom, I can recognize that that does not equate to having the liberation to turn a blind eye on effectiveness.
progress analysis
The course began and ended with the same food for thought: "How do you define a writer? Describe yourself as a writer." The time gap between the two discussions was about four months. Although it seems as a short period of time, the difference between my answers is relatively drastic. Right from the first sentence of both responses, they resemble two distinct personas. The tone shifts from poetic and philosophical, to direct and academic. I hadn't studied what molds a writer prior to taking this course, which influence the distinction between my two answers. A writer, to me, was defined by my own perception of myself, as a writer. Related to my tone, as mentioned in my second response, I learned to control how I present myself depending on the rhetorical situation and who my audience is. Part of this shift is also due to a difference in sources--my second response uses three sources from the semester, while my first one has the lack thereof. My liberty to support my claims with sources was not taken from me for the first class discussion, but my mind wasn't in source-mode--at the time, I believed that all I needed were my ideas, and credibility was left on the top shelf as result. Having used three sources to support my claims, and having altered the way in which I present myself for the sake of efficiency, for the same prompt by the end of the semester is a sign of growth--both as a student and as a writer. The overall distinction between the two, in my opinion, was the best way for me to illustrate my progress throughout the semester. Not only did my writing techniques met a change, but my thought process did as well.
​
​
​
Works Cited
​
Gee, James Paul. "What is Literacy." Journal of Education, volume 171, number 1, 1989, pp.18-25.
​
Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents." Rhetoric Review, vol. 15, no. 2,
1997, pp. 264-779.
​
Porter, James E. "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community." Rhetoric Review, vol. 5, No. 1, 1986,
pp. 34-47.
​